A Subtle Surprise: Brooks Cambium C-17

Earlier this year Brooks surprised their fans by announcing the release of a non-leather saddle: the Cambium C-17. Selected to be one of the beta-testers, I must have been in the very last wave of recipients, because the saddles have been out for months now and mine arrived only last week. About to head back to Ireland, I threw it in a suitcase and, after several days of jetlag, have now finally managed to get a good look. I have not tried the Cambium on a bike yet, but wanted to post some shots and first impressions, figuring many of you are as curious as I was. And there is good reason to be curious: The Cambium is quite a departure for Brooks of England - a storied manufacturer whose very claim to fame is its leather saddles. 

As Brook describes it, the Cambium C-17 is made "from vulcanized natural rubber and organic cotton enhanced by a thin layer of structural textile for added resilience." Considering this is a bike saddle, I'd assumed the fabric would be treated with something to make the surface smooth. But the surface has a distinct texture to it similar to that of artist's canvas or some types of denim. While it's been treated for stiffness and waterproofing, there remains a bit of tooth to it. For that reason I have to admit, I am reluctant to try this saddle with lycra cycling shorts - which can be delicate and abrasion-prone in the seat area. But I'll do it, and will let you know how it goes.

As far as looks, the one word that comes to mind in describing the Cambium is "subtle." This is a minimalist, low key saddle, not an ostentatious one. The colour of the cloth is half way between gray and taupe. In person, it can look either charcoal gray, ashy brown or even mauve, depending on what it's placed next to. This is rather nice, in the sense that it will match pretty much any bike. The brooks logo is stamped tone on tone into the rear of the undercarriage and is only noticeable close-up. The metal bits are matte, almost dull. The overall shape is somewhere between a Brooks B-17 and an '80s style vinyl racing saddle. 

While the Cambium's "C-17" label suggests it has the same dimensions as the B-17 touring saddle, this is not the case: The C-17 is narrower (162mm across, compared to the B-17's 175mm), longer (283mm, compared to the B-17's 275mm), and has less height to it (52mm, compared to the B-17's 65mm). The Cambium should be suitable for a more aggressive bike position than the B-17. The weight of the Cambium is 415g (compared to 520g of the standard B-17). The ladies' version - the C-17S - is the same as the C17 in every way, except 18mm shorter and 10g lighter. 

I did not receive any special insight into the Cambium's construction from Brooks, so I am just describing what I see. It looks like the undercarriage is modular, similar to Berthoud, with (rivet-shaped) screws instead of rivets. 

The matte metal resembles titanium, but it is not labeled or described as such, so I assume it is cro-moly.

Stamped "natural rubber vulcanized in Italy," the saddle is extremely flexible - I can easily bend and twist it with my hands. I imagine Brooks was trying to replicate the hammocking/ suspension qualities inherent to their leather saddles, and this was the solution they came up with. I am eager to experience the feel of this on a bike - especially on bumpy roads, chipseal and gravel.

The surface layer of cotton fabric is cut to form and glued onto the rubber. While the construction looks to be top notch, one potential problem I can see, is that over time the edges might begin to lift. Only long term use can determine whether this proves to be the case.

As I see it, the potential appeal of this saddle is two-fold: Those who do not use leather for ethical reasons will welcome a non-leather option from Brooks. And those who dislike how much Brooks leather saddles change shape over time might prefer the stability of the Cambium's construction. It is also interesting how Brooks went with natural, rather than synthetic materials in constructing this saddle, in keeping with its usual aesthetics. The C-17 will look good on a wide range of bikes, classic and modern.

Well, that is all for now. I am going to try this saddle on a semi-upright pathrace-style bike, then on my roadbike, and report back in a couple of weeks. If you have any questions in the meantime about the construction, shape or aesthetics, feel free to ask. In fairness to Brooks, I would like to note that I was not asked to write about the saddle on this blog or to publicise it in any way; my role as a beta-tester involves only private feedback. I believe the Cambium C-17 and C-17S will be available for sale in September, as a limited edition release. You can see its full specs, as well as read feedback from those who were in the earlier waves of testers, here.

Post-Flickr Blogging: Thoughts on 500px

For the past couple of months a portion of my energy has been dedicated to the back end of this blog. Namely, I am working on redesigning the layout and restructuring how my content is stored and organised – something I should have done earlier, and can't put off any longer. It’s a huge project, but once it’s done, the blog should be cleaner, more visually current, better suited for browsing content by topic, and easier for me to maintain. 

While it wasn't the main impetus, one thing that finally nudged me to get on top of the blog revamp was the "demise" (okay, redesign) of flickr. Like many bicycle bloggers and photographers, I've been relying on flickr for years to host, display and share my (thousands of) images. As someone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of the internets, I was aware of the risks of hosting images via a 3rd party provider. And even though I paid for a "Pro" account, I knew that I paid too little for the services I was getting and that the other shoe was bound to drop sometime. I expected this other shoe to come in the form of changes in pricing structure. Instead it came in the form of flickr, without a word of warning, dispensing with its Pro accounts altogether and turning into a dramatically less elegant, slower and harder to use version of its former self. I will not go into an anti-flickr rant here. But I will point you to this eloquent summary that reflects my own disappointments. To be clear, flickr still exists and my pictures remain on it, for now. But the service is not the same and I am seeking alternatives. 

One site that's come up in flickr refugee chatter has been 500px. Having met a couple of Irish photographers who use it, I finally gave it a try. I know that many visitors here are into photography and also seeking flickr alternatives, so I hope my feedback is useful.

A Canadian startup, 500px is a photo sharing site aimed specifically at aspiring and professional photographers. The design prevents users from dumping entire folders of images straight from their camera cards, encouraging instead a more thoughtful, selective approach. The layout is (for the most part) clean and portfolio-like. Users can organise their images into sets. They can also control which images show up in their photo stream/ entry page. This is a really nice feature, not available on many other photo sharing sites (which usually simply display your latest uploads first).

Uploading to 500px is a rather involved process. The system resists batch uploads, wanting you to describe and label each image individually before posting. This is fine if you are using the service as a portfolio of only your finest work, not so much if you want to upload your work in sets (as bloggers and event photographers tend to do).

Embedding pictures into web pages and blogposts is straightforward, with the code easily and obviously accessible from the main image page. However, it is not practical to use 500px for hosting images if your site receives heavy traffic, as the system limits users (even those with professional accounts) to 10GB of transfer per month. In layman's terms: If your blog is picture-heavy and receives over 100 unique visitors per day, you will likely exceed this limit. For comparison, this blog receives over 5,000 visitors per day, so hot-linking my images via 500px is out of the question.

As far as a professional portfolio display, 500px is great to use with one glaring exception: The intrusive likes/favourites/voting/comments system. Whether they want to or not, every user receives an overall "affection" rating that is displayed prominently in their header and is calculated based on the activity their pictures generate from other users. Every single image is likewise rated based on the likes, favourites, votes, and comments it receives. Aside from these ratings being distracting in of themselves (and, in my view, at odds with the otherwise professional feel of the site), they also invite spam and generic comments fishing for return likes. Such comments can be flagged (and moderators do remove them), but they cannot be deleted or disabled by the user directly, as far as I can tell. In fact, I would love to disable the entire "affection" system, but 500px does not allow it. Many others have echoed my concerns, and there is chatter of the ranking system being toned down in the future. I will wait a bit to see whether that happens before deciding if I keep my account (definitely not if the "affection" and spammy comment stuff is there to stay).

In short, I find 500px to be a mixed bag. As far as exhibiting photographic work, it could be a brilliant service if it weren't for the intrusive rankings system. It is also odd that the wonderfully easy to use marketplace makes it possible to sell downloads and "prints on canvas"(!) but not prints on paper.

As far as being of use to bloggers for embedding images into their posts... err, only if you have a lightly trafficked blog which you do not anticipate growing. Otherwise, no, 500px is not the right platform for that.

I will continue to explore other possibilities and report if I find anything interesting. But most likely, I will host images on my own server and may try to set up my own portfolio-type system for browsing (and possibly purchasing) interesting images. Flickr was good while it lasted - in particular for the online cycling and bicycle enthusiast community. Alas, nothing lasts forever. I thank you for your patience as this blog goes through its own changes, and, as always, thank you for reading Lovely Bicycle. 

Arm Coolers for Summer Cycling: A Look at Rapha and DeFeet

It is probably safe to say that most cyclists are not strangers to arm warmers. But what of their hot-weather cousins, the arm coolers? Those are a rarer beast. Worn with short sleeve jerseys, arm coolers are lightweight sleeves designed to protect from heat and sun. In intensely hot weather, wearing them is supposed to keep you cooler than cycling with bare arms or in a long sleeve jersey. So, do arm coolers work? Having tried the versions from DeFeet and Rapha, I believe they do. Here is more about them.

DeFeet ArmSkins ICE

Sun Protection: SPF 50 

Fabric: olefin/nylon/spandex blend

Country of Manufacture: USA

Price: $45

The DeFeet ArmSkins Ice are designed for both sun protection and abrasion protection. They are made of a rather thick, densely woven fabric that evokes medical compression wear. The texture has a striking silky sheen to it when new, though it subdues after some use. 

The ArmSkins Ice come in two sizes: S/M and L/XL. I fit the former. Pulling these on for the first time, the fabric is so dense it feels almost reluctant to stretch. But once in place, having these on is comfortable and non-constricting. For me the length is sufficient to overlap with cycling gloves.

The ArmSkins are constructed as seamless tubes. To stay up, they use a roll-top design instead of elastic or silicone grippers. The roll tops work fairly well to keep the sleeves in place, though on long rides I do adjust them occasionally. Personally I like the roll-top: Unlike silicone grippers - it does not pinch, squeeze or chafe the skin on my upper arms, especially on long rides in hot weather. 

Developed for temperatures over 80F and well into the 100s, the fabric of the ArmSkins Ice is described as being activated by air-flow, the "densely packed fiber molecules" causing "rapid heat exchange. If I understand correctly, the claim is that the material does not just protect the skin from outside heat, but actually sucks and expels heat from the body. According to DeFeet, the dense weave also offers abrasion protection in case of a fall or scrape - more so than a leather jacket. A technical discussion in this review describes how all of this works in greater detail. 

In use, the ArmSkins Ice feel cool to the touch, even in intense heat and sunshine. But moreover, once in a while I get the sensation of cold flashes along my arms. This happens in the absence of any breeze, but it does happen more when I ride fast, which probably means it is caused by increased air flow. To feel a chill on my arms in 90F heat and direct sun is quite something. I cannot comment on the abrasion protection, but the cooling properties of this garment are impressive. Wearing the DeFeet ArmSkins Ice feels like having an air conditioning system wrapped around my arms. 

Rapha Arm Screens

Sun Protection: SPF 50 

Fabric: polyester/elastane blend

Country of Manufacture: Turkey

Price: $45 

The Rapha Arm Screens are made of a stocking-thin fabric. They weigh next to nothing and, crumpled-up, will easily fit into the meagerest of jersey pockets. Pulling them on, the material hardly registers between the fingertips. 

The Arm Screens are shaped, with bonded seams running along the inside of the arm and articulated elbows. Reflective logos sit just above the wrists. 

The sizing (XS-L) is similar to Rapha's arm warmers - which is to say, they run small. However, they are also very stretchy, so there is some leeway. I am a US woman's size 4 with arms of average thickness and below-average muscle tone. I can fit into the Small, but the Medium feels more comfortable - with no sausaging effects and with length to spare. For those unsure about their size, I would suggest erring on the larger side: The longer length will ensure there is no gap between the Screens and your cycling gloves. 

The Screens stay up with the help of elasticised bands, which are as thin as the rest of the fabric. There is no silicone gripper and, compared to other designs, the hold is gentle - not pinching or squeezing the skin at the top. But the bands have worked well for me so far. For example, they kept the Arm Screens in place for over 15 hours straight on a recent long ride. The fabric feels delicate, though after some weeks of rough handling I have not snagged it yet. 

The "proprietary stretch Swiss fabric" used to make these is a polyester/elastane blend with "coldblack technology to keep the fabric cool against the skin." It has also been subjected to "anti-microbial/anti-bacterial treatment." Beyond this, Rapha does not elaborate. But whatever the technology is, it works. Wearing the Arm Screens pretty much feels like not wearing anything at all. I do not notice them on, other than that my arms feel cooler. Compared to riding bare-armed, I do not feel the heat or the burn of the sun's rays against my skin. Perspiration does not gather on any parts of my arms and removing these after a long ride, they are dry. The Rapha Arm Screens protect from sun and heat, while feeling weightless and comfortable on all-day rides. 

Identical in price point and SPF rating, the arm coolers from DeFeet and Rapha offer different technologies to deal with intense summer weather. A benefit specific to the DeFeet ArmSkins ICE is their added abrasion protection. A benefit specific to the Rapha Arm Screens is their weightlessness. Perhaps an obvious caveat - but both tend to get dirty in use, so do not expect them to remain bright-white for long. 

Similar products worth checking out include Voler Sol Skins, Pearl Izumi Sun Sleeves, Novara Sun Sleeves, Sugoi Arm Coolers, Craft ProCool Compression Coolers and DeSoto Arm Coolers - though I have not tried any of these myself. 

A Look at Rivet Saddles

When I last corresponded with Debra Banks, she was off to ride the Texas Rando Stampede 1200 - a 750 mile brevet that she would go on to complete in 85 hours. Naturally Deb did this on a Rivet: a waterproof, slotted leather saddle of her own design. 

While Rivet saddles are fairly new to the scene, Deb's experience in the industry goes back to her time at Selle Anatomica. In her own words: 

Tom Milton, the founder of Selle An-Atomica was my sweetie and after his untimely death, I ran SAA for a year while his estate was being settled. His family took over the company and I ventured out on my own to form Rivet Cycle Works.

At the moment, Rivet offers three basic models of saddles in different widths. Each is available in a range of colours, and with a choice of cro-moly or titanium rails. We discussed my trying one for review and settled on the Pearl. 

Named after Pearl Pass in the Rocky Mountains, the Rivet Pearl saddle was optimised for long distance comfort and support. As Debra explains, this does not mean these saddles are solely for long distance riders. Rather, if a cyclist experiences saddle discomfort when attempting longer rides, it was designed with addressing this in mind. The Pearl model features bag loops for attaching a full sized saddlebag. 

Measuring 170mm at the rear, the width of the Pearl is equivalent to that of Selle Anatomica saddles. However, the shape and structure are quite different. In fact, while Rivet saddles may invite comparisons to Selle Anatomica because of the shared history, I find them to have more differences than similarities. The list of similarities is short: Both are slotted, and both are made of waterproofed leather in largely the same range of colours. However, the form and feel have little in common.

The first thing I noticed about the Pearl before fitting it on my bike was how tall it was. The height, or depth of a saddle is not a spec that all manufacturers list, but it matters. While the Pearl's leather upper is in itself shallow, the rails are pretty deep. Installing it in place of my Berthoud Touring saddle, my seatpost had to be lowered almost a full cm to compensate. Selle Anatomica saddles are even shallower than Berthoud, so the difference there would be greater still. I am not comfortable providing exact figures, because height is difficult to measure and I don't want to misinform. But basically it's Selle Anatomica < Berthoud Touring < Rivet Pearl, with just under 1cm of difference in height between each.

It occurs to me that the purpose of the deep rail design on the Pearl might be to avoid any chance of the leather hitting the rails should it stretch over time. There is certainly no danger of that. The wrap-around tab on the underside further reduces tension loss.

According to Debra, Rivet saddles can take about 300 miles to break in, during which time they may also stretch. The tension screw should be used to regulate tension - not just in the event of stretching, but also to find the tension that works best for the rider's anatomy. 

The purpose of the slot on Rivet saddles is "to relieve pressure and help to re-distribute pressure to other areas, depending on how the rider sits on the saddle." The Rivet slot is a bit longer than the slot on the Brooks Imperial line of saddles, and considerably shorter than Selle Anatomica's. 

The edges of the Pearl's sitting surface are crisply delineated, rather than rounded, which gives it a sculptural look. The "R"-embossed rivets add textural interest. The Burgundy colour, pictured here, is a deep brown with a magenta tint (and, from what I can tell, identical to Selle Anatomica's Mahogany).

For waterproofing, a chemical agent is mixed into the tanning process (a different process than what is used for vegetable tanned leather). To increase firmness and minimise sagging, a second layer of leather is laminated to the upper piece. The leather for Rivet is sourced from Wisconsin, then sent to Taiwan, where the saddles are made by a master craftsman. Rails and other frame parts are sourced from Taiwan. The saddles are assembled there and then shipped worldwide.

With the demo Pearl on my roadbike, I rode around the neighbourhood and determined that the standard (highest) tension felt pretty good. The rear felt just about right at my sitbones. The transition from rear to nose felt just a tad wider than what I normally ride. With this initial assessment I felt comfortable enough to try a long ride.

I tested the Pearl on an informal 100K. Including my ride to and from, it was an 87 mile day in the saddle. For me, the Pearl out of the box did not require a break-in period. I experienced no soreness over the course of this distance. The leather felt quite stiff, but suppler than my hard-as-a-rock Berthoud. Compared to a Selle Anatomica, the "hammocking" action was subtle, and I could not discern independent movement between the two sides separated by the slot. The curvature and surface of the Pearl's rear felt very comfortable as the miles rolled on. Once in a while I could feel the ridges of the slot toward the front. It was not enough to cause chafing in the course of the distance I did, but I wanted to note that I could feel them. What did cause chafing - and this started around mile 60 - were the sides of the saddle in that transitional part that tapers toward the nose. Given the location and nature of the chafing, this was not a breaking-in issue or a tension issue, but a structural issue - the Pearl model is slightly too wide for me in the rear-to-nose transition, which caused chafing to my inner thighs over time. Having received my feedback, Debra agrees with this diagnosis and suggests I try the narrower Independence model to compare. 

As we all know, preferences in saddle shape, size and feel are highly personal. It is always good to have options and variety. Designed by an experienced randonneuse, the saddles from Rivet Cycle Works are a welcome addition to Brooks, Berthoud and Selle Anatomica. The Pearl model is priced at $150 with cro-moly rails and $250 with titanium rails. In addition to saddles, Rivet also offers handlebar tape, mudflaps, and other goods. I wish Deb all the best with the business, as well as in her cycling adventures. 

In Praise of the Saddle Wedge

The majority of my road rides are around 100 km or less, and done in stable weather conditions. On rides like these I want to keep the bike light, but still carry the essentials - such as a multi-tool, spare tube, band-aids, and an extra snack. My mini-pump is attached to the bottle cage, and anything else I prefer to store in my jersey pockets. This is why I love the basic saddle wedge. Also called a seat pack, this style of bicycle bag attaches to a saddle's rails and does not require bag loops. It is small enough to sit underneath the saddle without any part of it sticking out beyond the saddle's profile. And for those times when you want to attach a full-sized saddlebag, the wedge is quick and easy enough to remove.

My ideal saddle wedge is just large enough to fit the essentials. It is lightweight, easy to open and close, and attaches securely. I also like it when the bag has a loop in the back for a tail light attachment. There are lots of options for this type of bag. Here are the three I use on my bikes.

On my main roadbike I've been using a Jandd Hurricane Mini Mountain Wedge for the past year. As far as this style of bag goes it is on the larger size, but still very compact and light. Dimensions are 6x10x20cm, volume is 2L and weight is 104g. Made of vinyl-lined cordura, this bag is water and abrasion-resistant. Price is $26.95.

There are several features I really like about the Hurricane. For something this small, it sure fits a lot. In addition to the essentials listed earlier, I can usually stuff small tubes of chamois cream, sun screen, and even an article of clothing inside the main compartment. There is also a second compartment - a shallow pocket on the underside of the bag - for keeping money, ID, a brevet card, or similar. The reflective strip in the rear doubles as a tail light loop.

The Jandd Hurricane attaches with an adjustable strap that threads over the saddle rails, then closes with a side-squeeze buckle on the bottom, threading through a lash tab on the underside of the bag. This makes for a very secure attachment system, especially compared to some bags that use only small strips of velcro. A secondary, velcro attachment point wraps around the seatpost. The Jandd Mini-Mountain wedge is available in several versions and lots of colours, as well as in leather, suede and waxed cotton (though the latter will increase the weight of the bag and reduce its waterproofness).

On my dirt road/ camera bike I carry the Cargo Wedge by Inertia Designs as a supplement to my handlebar bag. This is a smaller style of wedge, with a pyramid-like shape to reduce its width. Dimensions (measured at widest parts) are 10x10x14cm, volume is .7L, weight is 70g. Made cordura lined with truck tarp, the bag is water and abrasion-resistant. The bag is US-made. Lots of colours available. Price for the version I have (embroidered with Harris Cyclery's logo) is $21.95.

The cargo wedge has a single compartment with a surround zipper. It attaches via two straps that thread through the saddle rails, then velcro to the side of the bag. The velcro surface is sufficiently long to keep the bag secure. A second loop goes around the seatpost. A reflective strip in the rear incorporates a tail light attachment. The tail light shot should give you an idea of how narrow this bag is.

Smaller still is the Soma Noe Road Wedge, which I typically affix to demo bikes that I test ride or have on loan for review. Soma does make larger saddle wedges, but the "narrow aero" Noe is truly minuscule and will fit just the essentials. Dimensions (measured at widest parts) are 15x9x4cm. Volume and weight are not stated. Made out of a hemp and cotton blend fabric with a waterproof coating, it is water resistant. Available in black and khaki, as well as in an all-reflective fabric. Price for the standard version is $12.99.

The Noe is so narrow that it can literally be wedged in between the saddle rails. Attachment via two velcro straps threaded through the rails, with plenty of adhesive surface, and secondary loop around the seatpost. Single compartment with surround-zipper. A reflective strip in the rear incorporates a tail light attachment. Note that the space for the tail light clip is a little tight here; mine squeezes in just barely.

If you browse through the saddle wedges offered by different companies, you will notice a pattern to their shapes, sizes, closure systems and other features. Some are flat, others pyramid-like. Some use buckle attachments, others velcro. A good way to determine which works best for you is to visit a bike shop that stocks different models and buy the bag there. Also talk to riders who have used specific bags for a while and in different weather conditions. After destroying the Fizik wedge I initially had on my roadbike, I was steered toward the Jandd by a local rider, which has since endured heavy use and bad weather without a mark on it.

When you don't want to carry a lot on your bike, the saddle wedge is a great little bag that keeps things simple and functional.

Showers Pass Women's Portland Jacket

When offered to review some products from the rain gear company Showers Pass, I immediately chose the Portland Jacket. Endowed with the technical features Showers Pass rain gear is known for, the Portland has the look of everyday apparel, while steering clear of extra frills and over-the-top urban stylishness. The combination could be just the thing for many bicycle commuters - particularly those whose definition of commuting involves spirited riding and roadbike positioning. Available in men's and women's versions, this review is of the latter.

The Showers Pass Portland is made of a proprietary synthetic 3-layer softshell material with a waterproof breathable membrane and box fleece lining. It is made in Vietnam. The fabric is waterproof, but the seams are not sealed. 

The hem of the jacket hits around the widest part of the hips. The sleeves extend a couple of inches past the wrists. The stand-up collar zips up to the chin. The fit is quite slender, almost like "racing fit." If you want a relaxed fit for layering, I would suggest going up a size. The model pictured is a US Women's Size 4 and she is wearing the Portland in a Medium (over a t-shirt and a sweater). Branding on this jacket is minimal. 

The light gray exterior features a subtle glen plaid pattern, with reflective piping along the seam at the shoulder blades in the back and above the chest in the front. The silver Showers Pass logos on the back of the collar and on the chest pocket in front are also reflective.

The black fleecy interior has a soft, waffled texture to it that is pleasant to the touch. 

The drop-down hem in the rear extends coverage and adds a wide reflective strip.

A feature specific to the women's version of the Portland is the side zippers. The jacket can be unzipped to varying degrees on the sides to flare out at the hips. This is a clever and flattering solution to the problem of accommodating variety in waist to hip ratios among women. The wearer can unzip the sides a little, a lot, or not at all, depending on body shape, positioning on the bike, and the look they are going for.

In front, there are two side pockets, tilted for ergonomic comfort, and a hidden chest pocket (with "audio port"). There are hidden armpit zippers for temperature regulation, which is also helped by the two-way zip feature of the main zipper in the front.

The small interior pocket will fit a wallet or phone.

Zippers at the wrists accommodate for variations in rider arm lengths, ensuring that the sleeve does not constrict the hand. 

Prior to passing on the Portland to the model, I did a few commutes in it myself. Personally, I found the jacket not ideal on an upright bike, since it provides no leg coverage (as a trench-style raincoat would). But on a roadbike it made a lot more sense. I will sometimes commute on this bike when I want to combine roadcycling with photography work, and a jacket like the Portland is a good way to still "look normal" while dressing comfortably for a leaned over position and spirited riding. The fit and all the zip features accommodate road positioning excellently. Having worn the jacket in the rain for a prolonged period, it was indeed waterproof - though missing a hood. Possibly it is assumed that a helmet will be worn, with its own rain cover contraption. The internal soft fleeciness makes the jacket quite cozy to wear on those raw chilly drizzly days. Unlike many other rain jackets, the Portland breathes well and is fine to wear when it's not raining. I would basically call it an all purpose Spring/Fall jacket. Possibly it is also suitable for cold summer evenings in the North, but not so much for a New England winter. Having worn it once on a 35° F day with "only" two layers underneath, I felt underdressed for the cold. Worth noting is that this is not a pocket stow-away jacket; its folded-up size will require a bicycle bag or rack-strap system.

The model pictured is a cyclist who usually commutes to work on a roadbike in street clothing (typically stretchy jeans and sweaters). Like me, she finds the Showers Pass Portland jacket waterproof and breathable. And she agrees that the fit is ideal for road positioning. Even with her aggressive posture, the front of the jacket does not feel like a weight pulling down. Neither does it fold to dig into her middle section uncomfortably, or pull at the shoulders. The stretch of the fabric and strategic zippers make for a comfortable and flattering fit. The look of the jacket suits her casual personal style. 

The Showers Pass Portland is an attractive, functional and practical bicycle commuter jacket for cool and rainy conditions, priced at $200. It will likely be most appreciated by those who prefer a leaned-over posture on the bike and feel constrained by longer, trench-style designs. Personally, I would prefer this jacket with a hood and wonder whether a detachable one could be included in a future iteration. 

Modified VO Handlebar/ Camera Bag Setup, Sans Decaleur

My reason for wanting a handlebar bag on a roadbike has to do with photography. I would like to carry DSLR and film equipment on scenic rides in a way that allows me to pause briefly, extract and use the camera quickly, then just as quickly put it away and continue cycling. Having carried cameras in both saddle bags and handlebar bags in the past, I prefer the latter for this task - provided, of course, that the bag is stable and not detrimental to the bicycle's handling. With a handlebar bag, the contents are convenient to access on the bike without dismounting or stopping for too long. I was eager to set up this system on my Rawland Nordavinden, enabling it to function as a go-fast dirt roadbike and camera bike simultaneously.

Having already owned a bike with a functional handlebar bag setup, the concept is familiar to me. On my former Rivendell, I had an Ostrich bag, attached with its native straps to the front rack, and supported at the top with a spacer-mounted decaleur. What I liked about that system was its stability, and the aforementioned ease of camera access. What I disliked about it was the bulk. The bag was larger than necessary. The myriad of leather straps, metal buckles and other appendages added weight. The buckles clanked against other metal hardware on rough roads, no matter how out of the way I tried to position them. And having a decaleur permanently attached to the bike seemed superfluous. But all this aside, using the same setup on my current bike was not an option. My handlebars are too low for the Ostrich and many other production bags. And for reasons too complicated to go into here, using a decaleur, even if I wanted to, would be problematic. So I took this as an opportunity to experiment with a decaleur-free setup. Velo Orange sent me their Campagne handlebar bag to try out for this purpose. This bag is considerably smaller than the Ostrich and just a tad larger than the small Gilles Berthoud. The design is otherwise very similar to the Berthoud. The VO bag's fabric, stitching and leather are noticeably rougher, which is reflected in its price ($110, compared to $225 for the Berthoud). 

I made a number of modifications to the VO bag. First, I removed all of its native leather attachment straps with metal buckles, of which there were 4: two for the handlebars (you can see them in use here), one on the underside of the bag for attaching it to the center of the rack's platform, and one at the rear for hooking over the rack's "tombstone." Unlike on some other bags, the straps on the Campagne are not permanently attached, but threaded through, so removing them is easy. But I did cut off the D-ring attachments on the sides of the bag: They were stiff and sticking up in a way that interfered with the top flap sitting flush (can be seen here as well). I will extract the remaining bits of leather eventually, but for now it's just a rough cut. Removing the leather straps and buckles made the bag quite lightweight - though there are still metal buckles on the front and rear pockets that I would love to replace with elastic cords, for the sake of convenience.

Going for a decaleur-free setup, my main goal was to attach the bag to the front rack as firmly as possible. With the native attachment system, the single strap on the underside of the bag hooks around a central point on the rack. Attached in that manner, the bag will pivot and sway without a decaleur. So what I wanted to do instead was attach the bag to the outside edges of the rack at 4 widely spaced points. There are several ways to approach this, and others have done it successfully using a variety of methods including velcro straps and metal rivets. Here I tried strong nylon cords. My husband used his leather punch to make 4 holes in the bottom of the bag, through the fabric as well as the stiffener. The cords are routed through the rack's light mount/strut eyelets (see below) and tied together tightly inside the bag, as shown.

The design of the Nitto Mark's Rack and similar makes this style of attachment possible. Routed through the eyelets in the rear (and around them in the front), the cord cannot slide along the rack. Mark's rack is a popular front rack, and using nylon cords makes this a lightweight, inexpensive and very easy to DIY method with any small h-bar bag. I should point out that the cords must be of the non-stretchy variety and rated for outdoor use. And if your bag does not come with a floor stiffener, I recommend making one; it will be a much more solid system. 

To attach the bag to the rack at the rear, I used a thick zip-tie. With a small handlebar bag, many find that this type 5-point attachment system is sufficient to keep the bag steady without the additional support of a decaleur, particularly when the bag comes with side stiffeners. I too found it acceptably stable. 

But once I added zip ties to secure the top to the handlebars, the bag felt as if it were nailed in place. This can only be done on bags that sit level with the handlebars, as shown here. In the future I might substitute these zip ties with cords, or thin strips of velcro - the kind used to wrap around bundles.

While I seldom use the tops of the drop bars, it's nice to know that I can. The handlebar attachment doesn't interfere, because the edges of the bag flare out and leave room for my hands. And the bag is narrow enough, so that with my 42mm wide handlebars it does not get in the way of using the Campagnolo shifters. The only downside to this attachment, is that it leaves little space through which to fish the cord when closing the bag, but with my long skinny fingers it is doable. Also, with a threadless stem, this works really well when opening and closing the bag on the go.

While some might scoff at the use of zipties and cords in leu of buckles or velcro, this is the most stable, least wobbly handlebar bag system I have tried thus far. The bag does not budge. And another thing: everything is silent. No rubbing, clanking or jingling noises. 

I have a very handy camera insert from Zimbale from 3 years ago, which fits into most of the bike bags I own - including the VO Campagne. I think this insert might now be discontinued, but you can still buy it from a couple of sources (try here). Alternatively, you could look for an appropriately shaped insert at a camera store. There is also Emily of Dill Pickle Gear, who makes custom inserts. Lots of options.

Since the VO handlebar bag closes toward me, I usually position the insert to close away from me, for an extra bit of overlap protection in case of rain or dropping the bike.

Inside the insert are two removable dividers, which makes for up to 3 compartments. 

My DSLR with a zoom lens takes up most of the insert. 

But with a fixed 35mm or 50mm lens, it only takes up one compartment. I can then store other items in the spare compartments, or remove the second divider to place a medium format camera next to DSLR.

I am very pleased with this system so far. The bag is easy to use, the camera is easy to extract without making a production out of it, and the bag is completely stable despite the lack of decaleur. Cornering, climbing, descending, rough roads, trails - great. I have only ridden with this setup locally so far, but I look forward to taking it on daylong rides out of state.

As far as the Velo Orange Campagne bag: It's hard to make judgments about construction quality until you've used a bag for some time, and I have not done that yet. Early on (and before I made any of my modifications), I noticed that one of the side pockets tore - or perhaps was not fully sewn in to begin with - where the fabric meets the leather trim. This prompted me to check all the other seams on the bag. Pulling on them, I have not noticed any defects, looseness, weak threads or fraying. I will follow up if anything else comes undone in use. The bag comes in one colour only, black fabric with honey-brown leather trim. The black fabric has faded a bit in the sun after a few rides, which actually looks nice. Slate blue-greenish. Almost every time I have ridden with this bag, it has rained - but not heavy rain, so I cannot comment on the extent of its waterproofness. Regardless, when using canvas bags I always wrap equipment in a plastic bag when it rains, just in case.

Basically, the VO Campagne bag is a budget-friendly version of the classic French Sologne design. It is a functional bag with a roomy interior, a large front pocket, two small rear pockets and two flat side pockets. Stiffeners (which I like and kept inside the bag), straps, and D-rings are included. The bag is also modification-friendly. And if I were going to modify a production bag, it makes more sense to use something like this than a high-end bag twice the price. In my opinion, the VO Campagne is small enough to set up without a decaleur using a system similar to what I described here. But for the record, VO recommends a decaleur, so experiment at your own risk. You might also be interested to know that Velo Orange will soon be releasing a new, US-made handlebar bag, manufactured by a Maryland sewing shop. Although too tall for my bike, it looks like a great design and I look forward to seeing it in use by others.